REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Davao Oriental Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch ___, Mati City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. ____________

- versus - For: Carnapping with Homicide

SUSPECT NUMBER 1
JOHN DOE 1
JOHN DOE 2
Accused,
x------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PROSECUTION

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, before this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this Pre-Trial Brief in compliance with the
Court’s order on January 7, 2015, containing the following:
1. Summaries of the Opposing Claims of the Parties
2. Applicable Law
3. Factual Issues for Trial
4. Prosecution’s Theory of the Case
5. Detailed Narration of the Prosecution Witnesses
6. Exhibit Files

I. SUMMARIES OF THE OPPOSING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES

For the Prosecution
On June 5, 2019 at about 10:00 in the evening at Purok 13, Cuabo, Brgy. Lubudon,
Mati City, Davao Oriental and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused
SUSPECT NO. 1, SUSPECT NO. 1 and JOHN DOE 2 armed with unknown gun and knives,
by means of violence and intimidation, with intent to gain and without consent of the
owner, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away with them the motorcycle
owned by the victim described as EURO 125 valued at PHP27,000.00 to his damage and
prejudice and by reason or on the occasion of the commission of the said carnapping act,
the said respondents in furtherance of their conspiracy and with intent to kill did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stabbed the victim
multiple times on the chest and on the back and subsequently shot the victim with an
unknown gun hitting the victim on his chest causing his untimely death.

For the Defense

 SUSPECT NO. 1 raised the defense of alibi claiming that he could not be liable for
the crime charged considering that on the night of the incident on June 5, 2019, he was
at Manay, Davao Oriental and not in Purok 13, Cuabo, Brgy. Lubudon, Mati City, Davao
Oriental. SUSPECT NO. 1 also claims that he has a friend who can testify that he was in
Manay, Davao Oriental to attend a town fiesta and was there the entire time that the
crime was committed.
SUSPECT NO. 2 also raised the defense of alibi also claiming that he could not be
liable for the crime charged considering that he was in Manila working as a factory
worker in J&G Ltd. on the night of the incident on June 5, 2019. JOHN DOE 1 presented
a Certificate of Employment and biometric record as well as testimony from his superior
to prove his alibi.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Section 2 of Republic Act 6539 as amended and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10883
or the "New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016" defines carnapping as the taking, with intent
to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means
of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
In the present case, the suspects acted in conspiracy with one another in their act
of taking away the vehicle and killing the victim in the process. It was the accused’s
original design to take away the vehicle owned by the victim, however the latter could
have refused in the same, which eventually led the accused to stab and shoot the victim
in the process.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct
evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime1 which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and
concurrence of sentiments2. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy is
present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the
performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. It may be deduced from the
mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated3.

III. Factual Issues for Trial

In the present case SUSPECT No. 1 claims that he was not on the place of the
incident when the crime was committed. However, records retrieved from the CCTV of a
bus terminal in Manay, Davao Oriental shows that about 7:59 in the evening, SUSPECT
NO. 1 actually alighted a bus going to Brgy. Libudon, Mati, Davao Oriental. Another
record from the CCTV of a bus terminal in Mati also shows that about 11:05 in the evening,
SUSPECT NO. 1 alighted a bus from Brgy. Libudon, Mati, Davao Oriental to Manay,
Davao Oriental.
Also forming part of the facts of the case is that SUSPECT NO. 1 is found to own an
XLR registered in his own name. This fact is significant considering that one of the
prosecution witnesses have seen one of the accused driving an XLR as they fled from the
scene of the crime.
SUSPECT NO. 2 completely denied the crime and even raised that he has never
been to Brgy. Libudon, Mati, Davao Oriental. Nevertheless, records have been retrieved
1 People v. Panida, 369 Phil. 311, 341 (1999)
2People v. Manes, 362 Phil. 569, 579 (1999)
3 People v. Bato, 401 Phil. 415, 424 (2000)
that SUSPECT NO. 2 was actually born in Brgy. Libudon, Mati, Davao Oriental as shown
in his Certificate of Live Birth and that he attended his primary and secondary education
in Libudon Central Elementary School and Libudon National High School, respectively.
There is also evidence showing that SUSPECT NO. 2 has previously been convicted of
robbery in 2005. This shows that SUSPECT NO. 2’s statement is clouded with falsity and
ultimately shows that his statements do not have any credibility.
Moreover, a Certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission shows
that there is no record of a corporation or a partnership named as J&G Ltd operating in
the Philippines. What is even more telling is the fact that MR. WITNESS, the witness
presented claiming to be his supervisor, was found to have been convicted in 2009 for the
crime of falsification of public documents. Again, the alibi provided by SUSPECT NO. 2
certainly deserves no recognition as SUSPECT NO. 2 ultimately fabricated an alibi which
is ridiculously contrary or conflicting to the records found.
Also forming an essential part of the facts of the case is the fingerprint analysis
from the weapons used in the commission of the crime and the EURO 125 which was the
subject of the carnapping. The analysis revealed that the knife used had fingerprints of
SUSPECT NO. 1 with his fingerprint records requested from his employment records. The
analysis further revealed that the gun used had fingerprints of SUSPECT NO. 2, which
fingerprint records of SUSPECT NO. 2 retrieved from his old robbery case. Furthermore,
the fingerprints of both accused were found all over the EURO 125, thus ultimately
debunking their alibis. If they did not commit the crime charged and if they did not have
any participation whatsoever, why were their fingerprints found in the weapons used and
in the carnapped vehicle?

IV. Prosecution’s Theory of the Case

It is the submission of the Prosecution that SUSPECT NO. 1 may have attended the
town fiesta and went on a drinking spree. SUSPECT NO. 1 decided to go home in Brgy.
Libudon at about 7:59 in the evening and may have gotten in his destination at about
9:30PM.
SUSPECT NO. 1, SUSPECT NO. 2 and a certain JOHN DOE may have been together
considering that they actually know each other, both being residents of Brgy. Libudon.
The accused may have spotted the victim with his motor vehicle and that is when they
concocted the plan to forcibly take the vehicle from the victim.
SUSPECT NO. 1 being an owner of an XLR may have driven the same together with
SUSPECT NO. 2 and JOHN DOE and followed the victim. Once the victim stopped and
was isolated in the dark corner of the street, they forcibly grabbed the motor vehicle. With
the victim’s refusal, SUSPECT NO. 1 stabbed the victim repeatedly and SUSPECT NO. 2
shot the victim, which ultimately led to his death.
Two of the accused fled from the scene driving the XLR while one of the accused drove
the EURO 125 owned by the victim.
Realizing that they committed a crime, SUSPECT NO. 1 later that night then alighted
the bus and went back to the town fiesta in Manay, Davao Oriental to make an alibi.
SUSPECT NO. 2 and JOHN DOE then went on their own ways and started brewing their
own alibi.

V. Detailed Narration of the Prosecution Witnesses

(INSERT WITNESS TESTIMONY)

VI. Exhibit Files

1. KNIFE
2. GUN
3. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PATHOLOGIST
4. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINANT
5. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS
6. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS
7. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS
8. DEATH CERTIFICATE
9. MUGSHOT
10. POLICE EXTRACT REPORT
11. PHOTO OF THE VICTIM CADAVER
12. MACHINE COPY OF VICTIM’S DRIVER’S LICENSE
13. PHOTO OF THE EURO 125 MOTOR VEHICLE
14. MACHINE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL RECEIPT/CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF VICTIM’S MOTORCYCLE
15. PHOTO OF THE XLR MOTOR VEHICLE
16. MACHINE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL RECEIPT/CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF ACCUSED’S MOTORCYCLE
17. FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS OF THE KNIFE
18. FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS OF THE GUN
19. FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS OF THE MOTORCYCLE
20. MEDICO LEGAL REPORT
21. CCTV THUMBNAIL AT 7:59 PM
22. CCTV THUMBNAIL AT 11:05 PM
23. COURT RECORD 2009 FROM RTC OF MATI
24. COURT RECORD 2005 FROM RTC OF MATI
25. SEC NEGATIVE CERTIFICATION
26. CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OF SUSPECT NO. 2
27. SCHOOL RECORDS OF SUSPECT NO. 2
The school records will